4 ms·

No. There is no valid reason to do so.

• DyslexicAtheist 9y ago
  if you understand the Math and agree that whatever you do needs to go through a proper peer review then why not. Saying "nobody may research the subject because you'll fail" is bad science. If you work in this space, know your Math, and don't rely on your invention to be put into production this year then why not study the problem space and innovate by following the established best practices!? Problems arise when someone thinks they should now turn this invention into a money-cow or label it "proprietary magic" (under the pretext of protecting IP/copyright).
  • akvadrako 9y ago
    > if you understand the Math and agree that whatever you do needs to go through a proper peer review then why not. Because crypto is really hard and you can't prove your new algorithm is secure. Only after being a popular high value target for years can you have much trust in your new hash. Even SHA2 might have flaws nobody knows about - that's the main purpose behind having SHA3 standardised - as a backup.¹ If you are not the designer of the algorithm it's even worse, because an exploit could be put in intentionally by proper choice of constants which are in some cases undetectable. [1] https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/152360/should-we-be-using-sha3-2017 https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/152360/should-w...